MODULE-2-UNIT-2-SUPPLEMENT-Borromeo-on-Cry-of-Balintawak (2).pptx

THE CRY OF
BALINTAWAK
A CONTRIVED CONTROVERSY
Soledad Borromeo-Buehler

SOLEDAD BORROMEO-
BUEHLER
Educational Background:
• PhD in History – UC Berkeley
• Fulbright-Hays scholar

SOLEDAD BORROMEO-
BUEHLER
Career:
-taught history at UP Diliman
-teaching assistant – UC Berkeley
-also taught at San Francisco State College,
San Jose State University, and the College
of Almeda
© your company name. All rights reserved. Title of your presentation

THE CRY OF BALINTAWAK: A
CONTRIVED CONTROVERSY
Date of Publication:
1998 (Ateneo De Manila University Press)

AIMS
• To help resolve the controversy of the First
Cry which led to the Philippine Revolution
of 1896.
• To resolve the questions on when and
where cedulas were torn and when and
where the initial skirmish between the
revolutionaries and the Spanish forces
took place.

4 INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
“CRY”
1. Traditional View of the Cry
2. Literal Interpretation
3. Formation of a Revolutionary Government
4. On Cedulas Torn

PEOPLE MENTIONED IN THE
ARTICLE
1. Pio Valenzuela
-Balintawak (first encounter) (August 26) to
Pugad Lawin (cedulas torn) (August 23)
2. Briccio Pantas – Pugad Lawin (cedulas
torn)
3. Cipriano Pacheco – Pugad Lawin
(cedulas torn)
4. Guillermo Masangkay – Balintawak
(August 26, 1896)

WHY IS THERE A CONTROVERSY OVER
THE FIRST CRY?
• Teodoro Agoncillo’s treatment of the
subject
• The translation of el grito (The “Cry”) led to
the confusion
• Blatant distortion of historical facts by
some scholars

4 DEVELOPMENTS THAT DISTORTED THE FACTS
REGARDING THE DATE AND VENUE OF THE “CRY”
1. Agoncillo’s flawed methodology that
ignored all documentary evidence in favor
of one source (memoirs of Pio
Valenzuela)
2. Agoncillo’s decision to change the
interpretation of the phrase “Unang
Sigaw” to adapt it to Valenzuela memoirs.
(tearing of Katipuneros’ cedulas)

4 DEVELOPMENTS THAT DISTORTED THE FACTS
REGARDING THE DATE AND VENUE OF THE “CRY”
3. Unauthorized use and misrepresentation
of an interview made by Agoncillo with
Masangkay dated October 11, 1947
4. Removal of an important piece of
evidence (the transfer of the 1911
monument of the Cry from Balintawak in
1968 to UP Diliman)

Original Inscription:
“Homenaje del pueblo
Filipino a los héroes del
’96”
26 August 1896
3 September 1911
Cry of Pugad
Lawin

DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE
CRY

DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF PIO
VALENZUELA

PIO VALENZUELA’S 1896
Statements before the
court of Judge Advocate
Francisco Olivé
1911 Press Statement and
1947 Conversation with
Agoncillo
Memoirs
-Valenzuela claimed that he
joined the Katipunan only
around March, April or May
1895 (Moriones Affidavit of
surviving Katipuneros:
Valenzuela joined
Katipunan in March 1895)
-Late entry of Valenzuela to
Katipunan because he
admitted that he did not
know anything about its
founding and early history.
-He was with Bonifacio and
others that he was in
Balintawak on 23, 24, and
25 August 1896 (confirmed
by Masangkay and
Samson)
-Night of August 24, 1896 –
“…we transferred to the
village of Pasong Tamo
(house of Melchora)…”
-August 25, 1896 –
“…sentinel atop a tall tree
shouted that he discerned
some civil guards coming
towards our way” (began
the uprising as instructed by
Bonifacio prior to the
scheduled date on 29
August 1896)
-night of August 25, 1896 –
stayed at a house in Kulyat.
“I was in the company of
Andres Bonifacio…”
August 20, 1896-his arrival
in Balintawak
August 22, 1896 – meeting
of some 500 members of
the Katipunan at the house
and yard of Apolonio
Samson at Kangkong.
-Views were only
exchanged and no
resolution was debated or
adopted.
August 23, 1896 – “...over
1000 members of
Katipunan met and debated
lengthily...” at the yard of
Juan Ramos in Pugad
Lawin

Statements before the
Francisco Olivé
Agoncillo
Memoirs
-also included in the
accounts were his salary as
physician of the Katipunan,
derogatory comments about
Bonifacio, his disapproval of
the planned uprising that led
to his escape and surrender
to the authorities.
-2 corrections he made:
*Date of attack of Civil
Guard in Balintawak: from
25 to 26 August 1896
*Details of his flight from
that place on the 25 August
-He left Balintawak with 2
guides on the night of 25,
1896 and went to Biñang.
-August 26, 1896 –
proceded to Balara and
stayed until the next day
“The discussion was
whether or not the
revolution against the
Spanish government should
be started on 29 August
1896.”
-Teodoro Plata was the only
one who protested and
fought against an early war
-Pantas and Pacheco were
present.
-”…many of those present
tore their cedulas and
shouted: “Long live the
Philippines!”

Statementsbefore the
Francisco Olivé
Agoncillo
Memoirs
Other corrections made by
him:
-He left Balintawak on the
night of 25 August 1896 on
instructions from Bonifacio,
that he proceeded to
Montalban to encourage its
residents to rise up in arms.
-The supremo invited him to
join the “movement of
defensive concentration”
on the expectation of an
attack that evening from the
Civil Guard. Valenzuela said
that he demurred…

1896 VERSION VS. MEMOIRS

1896 Statements Memoirs
Arrival in
Balintawak
August 22, 1896 August 20, 1896
Arrival of
Bonifacio and
companions
Early morning of August 22, 1896 August 19, 1896
Discussions or
exchange of
views in
Kangkong
Discussions in Kangkong – August
23, 24, and 25, 1896
Inconclusive “exchange of views”
–August 22, 1896
On cedulas
torn
August 23, 1896

• Since his 1896 court statements after the
revolution were damaging his credibility,
Valenzuela tried to nullify them, by alleging
these were made “under duress.”

• Agoncillo considered the Valenzuela
memoirs a better source.

GUILLERMO MASANGKAY’S
EXPOSE ON THE “CRY”
• Jose P. Santos published a signed
statement by Valenzuela, Pantas, and
Pacheco about the supposed “Cry of
Pugad Lawin”
• -refuted by Masangkay

• “…when the Cry of Balintawak took place,
Valenzuela and Pantas already fled to
surrender to the Spaniards, while Pacheco
was never there.”
• Assembly in Balintawak at the invitation of
Bonifacio.
• Bonifacio laid out the plan for general
uprising against the Spanish government

• Bonifacio and other katipuneros tore up
their cedulas.
• Pantas, Valenzuela, and Plata opposed
the uprising.

• “…the alarm was raised that the civil
guards were coming. The first to flee were
Pantas and Valenzuela. For this reason,
they could not have witnessed the
‘Supreme Cry’ that launched the [fight for]
the independence of the Philippines at that
moment; neither did they smell gunpowder
of the first shots.”

BRICCIO PANTAS’ RESPONSE
• He denied Masangkay’s revelations.
• Criticized the Balintawak uprising as ill-
prepared and counter-productive.
• He and his colleagues did not oppose the
planned revolution.
• They did not escape from Balintawak.

BRICCIO PANTAS’ RESPONSE
• He and Valenzuela were sent by Bonifacio
to perform errands elsewhere.
• Alleged that Valenzuela was a cofounder
of the Katipunan.
• Laong raids on the evening of 25 August
1896 (same with the accounts of
Valenzuela and the Spanish sources)

PANTAS’ NEW ACCOUNT OF
THE BALINTAWAK EVENTS
• Unknown to the Bonifacio group, he left
Balintawak while Bonifacio and Plata
debated the idea of an attack on Fort
Santiago.
• Suggested a literal interpretation of the
term “Cry” because he could not provide
any information about the Cry of
Balintawak

• Assembled at the place of Apolonio
Samson [no mention is made of Pugad
Lawin at all]
• The first encounter [allegedly] took place
in Santa Mesa.
• His family burned the minutes of
Katipunan meetings in the wake of mass
arrests and executions

• A revolutionary government was formed in
Caloocan in late June or early July 1896 in
the form of a War Cabinet.
• The founding fathers of the Katipunan
were Deodato Arellano, Andres Bonifacio,
Teodoro Plata, Ladislao Diwa, and
Valentin Diaz.

CIPRIANO PACHECO’S
RESPONSE
• He insisted on the Pugad Lawin version
• He contradicted Valenzuela by asserting
that Teodoro Plata made a speech in
Pugad Lawin in support of the revolution
and enjoined his fellow katipuneros to tear
their cedulas.

WHICH INTERPRETATION?
• Agoncillo discarded the Masangkay
version “because in 1932 he [Masangkay]
said that the Cry took place on 26 August
1896, he nullified in 1947, in the course of
an interview with him, that the cry took
place on 24 August 1896.”

CRITICISMS TO AGONCILLO’S
CLAIM
• Transcript of 1947 interview with
Masangkay in Tagalog was found in the
Masangkay papers together with a self-
addressed, self-stamped envelope.

• Agoncillo’s transcript contains only
Masangkay’s answers to Agoncillo’s
questions, but not the questions
themselves.
• August 24 & 26, 1896 - cedula shredding
in the Masangkay version

• “When I questioned Masangkay on the
subject in the early 1960s, he said that
Agoncillo was mistaken, because neither
Pio Valenzuela nor Emilio Aguinaldo were
in Balintawak at the time.”

• “If, as Masangkay explained, the tearing of
cedulas in Balintawak signified an act of
defiance against continued Spanish rule
and an irrevocable commitment to support
the planned uprising, is it conceivable that
those who strongly opposed that uprising
would have torn their cedulas? Would
these have dared flee and surrender to the
Spanish authorities without this very
important document?”

CONCLUSION
• 1896 Court Statements of Valenzuela –
more reliable
• Valenzuela’s memoirs- poor credibility
• Cry of Pugad Lawin -invention

MODULE-2-UNIT-2-SUPPLEMENT-Borromeo-on-Cry-of-Balintawak (2).pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to MODULE-2-UNIT-2-SUPPLEMENT-Borromeo-on-Cry-of-Balintawak (2).pptx

Similar to MODULE-2-UNIT-2-SUPPLEMENT-Borromeo-on-Cry-of-Balintawak (2).pptx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

MODULE-2-UNIT-2-SUPPLEMENT-Borromeo-on-Cry-of-Balintawak (2).pptx